Comments on: EU hits Intel with $1.45 billion antitrust fine

Regulators say that the chipmaker "harmed millions of European consumers" by using anticompetitive measures intended to squeeze out rival AMD's processors.

[jlees]

@NickH

The fine goes to the same place taxes go to the general fund

[mupptasstic]

Who cares what some Eurotrash judge thinks. Screw em'"


classy....I'd imagine the shareholders in Intel care....since intel does 30% of it's business in the EU, thats what 10-11 billion a year?....

[mupptasstic]

ntel did nothing wrong!!!!
They are being accused for doing whole sale discounts to computer makers!!!!!
Think of it this way, if HP buys 1,000 quad cores they are $200 each. But if HP buys 100,000 they are $100 each or say 200,000 they are $75 each.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH SELLING THINGS AT WHOLESALE PRICING!!!!!!
THE EU IS JUST BIAS, AND HATE BIG CORPORATIONS!!!!!!!!
AND THIS IS THE DEAL!!!!
INTEL ISN'T TRYING TO DESTROY AMD, BECAUSE INTEL NEEDS AMD FOR if Amd were no more, there would be no one to compare intel's cpu too.
Think about that!!!!"


ease back on the CAP's there tonto.......did you even readup on this?....they were fined not for discounts, but making the dicounts condiditional on AMD ect prodeucts not being sold/included in products, if the EU was biased why agree with another American company.....or do you imagine 600million+ people harbour a grudge against 1 US company?

[mupptasstic]

We need EU style systems here. Be it health care , socialism etc. 50 million americans without health care. Yet, people think USA is place where milk and honey flows. What a pity.2


Ok we are not "socialists", we have a very wide hue of political ideals and the parties to match, we have old school communists, greens, social democrats all the way to Christian demcrats and right wind parties, we have parties here in Government that would make the Republicans in the US look like a bunch of hippies....

[jim barin]

Since when have monopolies been good for the buyer?

Assuming the EU is correct in its finding, Intel should get a hammering.

But I do have an issue with the fine going into the coffers of the EU to be handed out in subsidies to French farmers and fishermen, and to Italian olive growers and all the other "good causes" who dip their greedy snouts into the collective trough into which my taxes go.

Better to have spread the money out as a US $50 rebate for anyone buying an AMD chipped computer in the next few months, that way Intel learns that fines may hurt, but losing sales hurts even more, which is apparently the fate AMD suffered at the hands of monopolistic Intel.

[navaid3]

All the crimes of Intel and AMD notwithstanding, screw the EU. It should be U.S. business and not an excuse for the EU to mine U.S. companies.
Jefferson was right, Europe has interests peculiarly her own, a America her own interests, and we should not have much to do with them.

[truscifi]

Let me first say, that unlike the responses I've seen, I don't want to pretend I know the facts in the current dispute. Unless you're part of the investigation, and you shouldn't be if you're blogging, you really don't know. Knowing the all facts is important to logically make judgement, because despite the banter; claims are never what they seem.

Next, (as a former Intel employee) I've experienced previous events in the AMD v. Intel feud. Seeing what is said and not said in the press is actually quite telling. The basics are however, follow the money, see who's pushing, and you'll find the stuff that stinks.

Some of the initial AMD claims submitted included "selling below cost" or "locking rebates to future business". One will note those are no longer in the claims, and in fact, the statement was that no such contract exists (eg. locking business), but, they had some emails. We also know that Intel's profit margins are great and I can attest to the fact that their manufacturing is second to none. So why make these claims if you don't have a good chance of winning? Operational secrets and the off chance that something sticks. A common trick in the 90's that some smaller companies would do was to make those "below cost" claims to force the competitor to show things like ISO's (defect density on the wafer) and yield. The defendent would need to show these in order to justify the cost structure. Soon afterwards, profits seem to improve from the companies complaining. Engineers are a pretty resourceful lot and a few hints go a very long way. The same for contracts, knowing how your competitor structures their deals gives you a leg up on structuring your next deal. Both items are non-patentable and thus heavily guarded secrets. The legal process just opens that kind of stuff up. There was a marketing program where Intel would help pay for the advertising (majority of the cost) just to get the logo in the bottom corner. Several times mfgers would 'inadvertently' include the AMD logo (catching a free ride on the ad). Those claiming "cornering the market" with aggressive rebates should simply go to their local electronics store. Intel systems with similar attributes, almost always cost more than AMD systems. In fact most of my friends would love it, if Intel would increase the rebates so they cost the same as the similarly equipped AMD system. Those making the market cornering claims with the end product always costing more (multi-yr span) must have had a strange education in economics

Now let's look at what was claimed vs. concluded. The "smoking-gun" amongst 5yrs is email. The EU commission confirmed that there were no contracts that bind purchases to Intel product. The below cost claim is gone, no contracts, nothing even pretending to be an official business deal. I don't know about you, but, any business I run on sourcing material, it's written and in contract. Hey, I used to have pricing contracts for 100lb bags of rice at $20/ea in our restaurant. You're going to "wing-it" on an email..I don't buy it. Going on for 5yrs? give-me a break. There's gotta be more.

Without the details, what can one really conclude or judge? Let's look at who is to gain? Consumers? no way! AMD and Intel have been in pricing wars for some time. If you have a better product, you may just price match, weaker product?cut prices down. If the higher priced system gets a lower price via rebates and the formerly lower priced systems follow suit; the consumer always gets better product for lower price. Take away those rebates, the higher price systems remain high and no change to those lower priced systems. Result: Consumers lose. Doesn't matter if you like AMD or Intel product.

So if these reported claims don't make sense, then what's really behind this? $1.5B is a big amount. Well, the money goes to the EU and portion will go to Germany who pushed for the investigation...just by coincidence that AMD's largest fabrication site is in Germany. Following the money, where would the money come from? If the commission's judgement sticks in court, .the money would come from the US.... the only US mfgers who is/was willing to plunk down $7B into a US industry.
Net winners = AMD, the foreign-owned Foundry company, Germany, EU gov'ts
Net losers = Consumers (EU), Intel, US economy/gov't, and semicon suppliers

One has to admit that the claims before, the comments after, the amount and where the money goes raises a lot of suspicions

[les304usa]

E-mail should be and is acceptable as evidence. If you were to e-mail a threat to someone, the authorities could and would use that against you.

It is interesting that AMD tried to give 1,000,000 CPUs for free and a manufacturer refused it. One has to wonder how much Intel scared/threatened this manufacturer to the point they refused 840,000 free processors. If each of those processors cost just $100, they said no to $84 million. This bullying practice might not have been written in a contract, but it worked just the same to Intel's favor.

Our regulators here need to learn from EU and enforce the laws more firmly. Otherwise, these giant companies will continue to think that their practice is compliant (because nobody tells them different) and use the same anti-competitive practices in other markets (and get in trouble for it).

I think as consumers, we will all benefit from this decision. I like to have the choice and not be forced to live with low-quality and unaffordable prodcuts. That's what would happen if Intel were the only game in town.

Lastly, what's everyone's problem with where the money goes? If and when Intel is fined in the US for the same violation, where do you think the money will go?

[truscifi]

les304usa,

I have my doubts on the "bullying tactics" claimed. The point with the changing words and positions, is there is definitely something going on with AMD and the EU. If all you have to hang your hat on is emails; and, seeing past behavior on using claims to gain business info,.. the circumstances are too coincidental.

With respect to long term purchases or rebates, they are just not done via email.

The point with the rebates and pricing is: how often do you see an equivalent computer system that Intel systems are cheaper?

I would like to see the findings go to court. If Intel's claims are correct, and testimonies and counter evidence were ignored or removed from considerations; court proceedings should at least expose more of the truth.

The issue with where the money goes, is that's generally how to find where some of the truths lie....not to mention the economic impact. If you believe the EU is above protectionism, think again, Germany is known to protect their auto industry... so it becomes regulations and political decisions to safeguard their industries. Why do you think AMD lodge their complaint via the Germans....Germany has a vested interest in their AMD Dresden plant. Guess where AMD is pushing their US agenda, NY where they promised a Fab plant. I don't trust politicians, lawyers, and money, here in the US or there in EU. It's the motives that count. If it were lower costs and options, the EU explanation makes no sense, unless the prices actually went higher.(which never happened). Choices?- we see AMD systems in all the stores at a cheaper price.

[i_made_this]

The article mentions that the OEMs named by the Commission as being involved by taking Intel's bribes included the world's three largest : Acer, Dell and Hewlett-Packard, two of which are American companies.

I wonder if these three are being viewed as Intel's pawns or conspirators? Ya, I know it's the latter but I'm wondering how the public will view this.

[JJDickson]

The EU(SSR) is a socialist dictatorship. Socialism is exclusively about stealing from the productive and giving to the non-productive. The EU(SSR) is simply being true to it's founding principles. Intel is paying the price for dealing with thieves. Perhaps after this it will no longer be worthwhile to do so, and they will withdraw to more honest trading areas. JD.

[Fil0403]

As I already previously stated in a reply to another user, I understand and respect your opinion, but, if they, indeed, engaged in anti-competitive practices, it's only fair and logical they are fined, no?

P.S. I am a happy EU Intel customer and IMO they are the best in what they do.

[Fil0403]

Shame on Intel. Too bad for AMD.

They're still the best, though IMO (Intel).